And before or after all events - what leads you to think that there is time? Would it make any difference if we say there was or wasn't time? Note you can't measure the time when there are absolutely no events (there won't be you nor any watch ticking).

The fact that absolutely nothing changed during the last 3 hours doesn't change the fact that three hours have passed.

Time is a sequence of events, if any event in the history in the universe has taken place, it proves to us that what we call time exists. But it's not related to physics. It's just plain old sequence of events.

Last edited by maxorator; 03-06-2009 at 04:43 PM.

"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

But you can define distances in terms of time (rate of speed times time), so it doesn't make sense to me that time is wholly different from space. It might not be tangible or real, but time being separate from space makes it seem purposeless. In other words, when something takes place is as important as where it takes place because it's plausible that the space was created before or would only exist during the event.

Time cannot start without time, because an event (big bang) can only occur when time exists, therefore time has always existed.

I can see what you mean.

I think some people see the Big Bang as when existence began, and before that as absolutely nothing. So they think that there is no time in nothing because there are no two events to mark the passing of time.

But when the Big Bang occurred, two events had passed: nothing and Big Bang, therefore time existed from nothing to the Big Bang.

But when the Big Bang occurred, two events had passed: nothing and Big Bang, therefore time existed from nothing to the Big Bang.

'time', as a construct, existed before the big bang, the primordial singularity was not the beginnign of the universe, its just as far back as the current theoretical model can go. Many physicists beleive that the universe has gone through many, possibly infinite cycles of big bang, big crunch, big bang.

I think some people see the Big Bang as when existence began, and before that as absolutely nothing. So they think that there is no time in nothing because there are no two events to mark the passing of time.

But when the Big Bang occurred, two events had passed: nothing and Big Bang, therefore time existed from nothing to the Big Bang.

It's good to see alot of fine minds contributing to the discussions.

Since an event can only happen in "time", that would mean that everything would be dependant on time, hence time is the creator, and as thus, it could be seen as immortal.
And if it is immortal, then I think it is feasible to say that there probably have been an infinite amount of big bangs and start and death of universes, in an endless cycle.
It would seem strange if the the Everything was only born so little time ago.
Heck, scientists cannot even be sure that big bang was the start of the entire universe. It may only as well have been the beginning of our part of the universe. There probably are an infinite amount of space still, where this cycle continues or have already finished.

Originally Posted by abachler

'time', as a construct, existed before the big bang, the primordial singularity was not the beginnign of the universe, its just as far back as the current theoretical model can go. Many physicists beleive that the universe has gone through many, possibly infinite cycles of big bang, big crunch, big bang.

So I think this theory is plausible and logical.

Originally Posted by Adak

io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.

Originally Posted by Salem

You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

Since an event can only happen in "time", that would mean that everything would be dependant on time, hence time is the creator, and as thus, it could be seen as immortal.
And if it is immortal, then I think it is feasible to say that there probably have been an infinite amount of big bangs and start and death of universes, in an endless cycle.
It would seem strange if the the Everything was only born so little time ago.
Heck, scientists cannot even be sure that big bang was the start of the entire universe. It may only as well have been the beginning of our part of the universe. There probably are an infinite amount of space still, where this cycle continues or have already finished

I totally agree with you.

"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

Since an event can only happen in "time", that would mean that everything would be dependant on time, hence time is the creator, and as thus, it could be seen as immortal.
And if it is immortal, then I think it is feasible to say that there probably have been an infinite amount of big bangs and start and death of universes, in an endless cycle.
It would seem strange if the the Everything was only born so little time ago.

Well I suppose the ultimate question is whether time passes in stasis (before the epoch to begin them all). I don't think there is an ultimate difference whether we are the first or forty-second iteration of the universe, either; I don't find it too strange, just unimportant. Time serves no purpose there.

Time is an aspect of atomic physics, which is a possibility of three dimensionality, which is the only possible quality of substance. Matter is atomized substance. So when people say "time is a product of the big bang" they really mean it is a complication involving our reality, since as biological beings we are "downstream" from nuclear forces. Presuming by aliens we mean a form of intelligent biological life, they would have to experience the universe on our level.

"Space" (an apparent absence of substance) is a complication similar to time, but it's relationship to the logical root (three dimensionality) is different conceptually, as a lot of the discussion about distance and events leads toward.